On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 01:46:59PM +0200, stijn rutjens wrote:
> ""Hi,
> I've added an ioctl flag to notify the interface we want to use the
> upper 4 bits for the compression level (which has significantly
> decreased the size of the patch). How do you want to split the patch
> up?
I'd like to see the patches to answer that.
> > > @@ -1572,9 +1576,9 @@ int btrfs_defrag_file(struct inode *inode, struct file *file,
> > > filemap_flush(inode->i_mapping);
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (range->compress_type == BTRFS_COMPRESS_LZO) {
> > > + if ((range->compress_type & 0xF) == BTRFS_COMPRESS_LZO) {
> > > btrfs_set_fs_incompat(fs_info, COMPRESS_LZO);
> > > - } else if (range->compress_type == BTRFS_COMPRESS_ZSTD) {
> > > + } else if ((range->compress_type & 0xF) == BTRFS_COMPRESS_ZSTD) {
> > > btrfs_set_fs_incompat(fs_info, COMPRESS_ZSTD);
> > > }
> >
> > For further iterations of the patch, I suggest to split it into more
> > patches by logical change, like adding helpers, extending the ioctl,
> > adding asserts, etc.
>
> The ioctl interface is now extended (see patch-extend-ioctl.patch)
> for the other patch, see patch-extend-inode.patch
> Where should asserts be added?
Where are the patches? Your mail does not have any attachments.
